make WWAY your homepage  Become a fan on facebook  Follow us on twitter  Receive RSS Newsfeeds  MEMBERS: Register | Login

HEALTHWATCH: New study says cellphone radiation levels exceed 'safe' limits for adults and children

READ MORE:

By DAN CHILDS (@DanChildsABC) and DR. NAFIS AHMED (ABC NEWS)

A government test used to measure the radiation people absorb from their cellphones might underestimate the levels to which most adults and children are exposed, according to a group of doctors and researchers whose stated mission is to promote awareness of environmental health risks they believe may be linked to cancer.

Researchers from the Environmental Health Trust released a report this morning noting that the Federal Communications Commission test to determine radiation exposure is flawed.

The reason for the discrepancy, the group says, is that the process to determine radiation exposure from cellphones involves the use of a mannequin model that they say approximates a 6-foot-2, 220-pound person. Because the model represents only about 3 percent of the population, the authors report, the test will not accurately predict the radiation exposure of the other 97 percent of the population, including children. The group is pushing for a new testing system to measure radiation exposure in a wider range of consumers.

"The standard for cellphones has been developed based on old science and old models and old assumptions about how we use cellphones, and that's why they need to change," said Dr. Devra Davis, former senior adviser in the Department of Health and Human Services under the Clinton administration and one of the report's authors.

A different study cited in the report says a child's bone marrow absorbs 10 times the radiation as an adult. The authors also raise questions about long-term side effects, such as infertility in males who carry phones in their pockets, an exposure unaccounted for in the traditional certification process.

The authors suggest an alternative certification process, one that uses MRI scans to test real humans, including children and pregnant women. Such an approach would provide exposure data on a "Virtual Family," representing all ages, the authors say.

"What the 'Virtual Family' does is it uses anatomically based models that reflect the fact that children's brains are more vulnerable than adults," Davis said.

The Environmental Health Trust is a non-profit organization whose scientists have also leveled their gaze at environmental hazards such as asbestos, tobacco smoke and radiation from medical diagnostic equipment. In addition to Davis, the group also counts among its members Dr. Ronald Herberman, director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, and Om Gandhi, a former scientist for Motorola who first performed the research establishing acceptable radiation risk. Both were also authors on the report.

The U.S. government has had no specific comment on the report. The cellphone industry group CTIA-The Wireless Association said that because members "are not scientists or researchers on this topic," the news media should contact experts instead.

But whether the low level of radiation from cellphones actually causes cancer is a question that has yet to be answered. "No scientific evidence currently establishes a definite link between [cellphones] and cancer or other illnesses," the FCC says on its website.

Independent scientists also said there are no conclusive studies that cellphone radiation causes cancer.

In May, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer placed cellphones in the same category as lead and engine exhaust, citing the possibility that exposure to cellphone radiation could have long-term health effects. But roughly 30 studies conducted thus far have failed to draw a conclusive link.

One study last year found a slight, statistically insignificant increase in risk in a rare form of brain cancer called glioma among cellphone users. Another study out of the National Institutes of Health Research found cellphone use was associated with increased brain activity. But whether that is linked in turn to an increased risk of cancer has yet to be shown.

Studies Show No Cellphone Radiation Dangers Yet

"While experimental evidence and very limited human studies suggest that we should be cautious, people should realize there are many things we are exposed to every day that also is classified by IARC as possibly carcinogenic," Dr. Peter Shields, chief of Georgetown University Hospital's cancer genetics and epidemiology program in Washington, D.C., told ABC News in May. "The classification used by IARC for cellphones is the lowest of all the carcinogenic classes, and no one should think that cellphones pose the same risk as smoking and asbestos."

Doctors appear to be split on the possibility of risks when it comes to their own cellphone habits. After the International Agency for Research on Cancer announcement in May, ABC News reached out to 92 physicians. Sixty-five of these doctors said they would continue to hold their cellphones up to their ear, but 27 said they would use hands-free devices to minimize their risk.

Disclaimer: Comments posted on this, or any story are opinions of those people posting them, and not the views or opinions of WWAY NewsChannel 3, its management or employees. You can view our comment policy here.

»

A new reason

for entitlement recipients not to work.

They use the government provided cell phones so frequently keeping up with goings on that they have fried their brains.

Plus they can now SUE!

"The reason I cant work is cuz you give me that free cell phone an now I need the TANF, Medicaid, EBT card **AND** SSI 100% disabiddy.

I had not considered that

but you are so right.

First, Safelink.com did not provide adequate training in the use of free cell phones to avoid brain damage.

They failed to provide some type of stylish headwear to shield the brain from radiation or small caliber rounds.

Then Safelink.com did not install some type of monitor to measure brain-radiation ratios.

Next there's no means of preventing calls to your local dealer to score some marijuna to ease the pain.

This could open up a whole new realm for plaintif attorneys.

Of course the government has no money to pay claim awards. Who worries about that?

a typical chest x-ray gives

a typical chest x-ray gives off 10mrem, background radiation from the sun, manmade objects, etc we get about 650mrem total per year per person in the US. you could safely double that with no adverse side affect. they say cancer increase risk by 10% for a total of 250,000mrem total. meaning you'd have to get somewhere in the neighborhood of 3,500-4,000mrem per year for 70-75 years.

are cell phones really putting off that much radiation? doubtful.

HANG UP AND DRIVE!!!!!!

Now maybe all those idiots who drive and talk to their cell phones forever will take a hint and quit driving and talking. Do yourself and others a favor, use it for a short time period and then HANG UP and you won't get cancerbaHYR

RF radiation is non-ionizing radiation

It's like a microwave oven, NOT like an X-ray or exposure to radioactive elements. They produce ionizing radiation, and are well known to cause cellular damage.

So the WORST you could do is heat up part of your brain one or two degrees during a long call.....which begs the question, what happens to your brain on a hot August afternoon or when you run a fever?

The ridiculous nonsense people worry about....

Uh Oh

I had better call my doctor...

WAIT A MINUTE!!

For the real facts on this issue...

the researchers should have contacted Fat Al Gore...after all, he invented the internet and surely has to have a factual opinion about this and other important matters such as his pet cause...Global Warming.